Ideal free distributions form across a regulatory boundary in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Division 4X and 5Z groundfish fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used isodars, developed from the ideal free distribution (IFD), to predict the distribution of fishing effort across regulatory boundaries in the south-western Scotian Shelf’s haddock fishery. Our analysis was focused around the boundary between Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization’s Divisions 4X and 5Z. While effort within 4X was related to the standardized catch value and effort experienced along the 4X–5Z boundary, most effort predictions across the boundary were also accurate. Accuracy of these cross-boundary isodars suggests that a high degree of movement across the boundary meets the IFD assumption of free movement and thus, effort on one side of the boundary is related to fishing success on the other side of the boundary. Fisheries management strategies should adopt a broad view that encompasses adjacent regulatory regions to understand where vessels may choose to fish when multiple regulatory regions are accessible. In fisheries where isodars describe effort distributions across a regulatory boundary, the relative abundance of the underlying fish population could be better indicated by effort distribution among regulatory regions than by catch rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".